September 29, 2012

rolloff analysis of South Indian Brahmins

Populations with 5+ individuals and which belonged no more than 5% in African or East Eurasian components at K=7 were retained. South Indian Brahmins were combined from the Iyer_D and Iyengar_D datasets of the Dodecad Project. Other populations were from the current version of the Old World dataset used for the K7b/K12b calculators.

Links between Western Europe and South Asia have turned up in many of the Project's analyses (e.g., the West European in Dodecad v3, or the Gedrosia component in K12b, or even earlier the "Dagestan" component in both West Europe and South Asia).

Of course, we don't have to imagine a migration all the way from the the British Isles to South Asia, anymore than we may imagine a migration from South America to Europe to explain the strong negative f3(European; Karitiana, Sardinian) signals previously detected. I don't know what to make of this tendency to minimize f3 for the "longest possible clines".

In any case, I carried out rolloff analysis using Orcadians and North_Kannadi. This is not the strongest signal, but it is very close to it, and also has the twin advantages of involving public data (so the analysis can be repeated) and a large number of SNPs, which were 466,644 in total. The fit can be seen below:

This appears to be excellent visually. The inferred date from the jackknife is 110.155 +/- 11.345 generations, or 3,190 +/- 330 years, assuming as always a generation length of 29 years.

The obvious candidate for this admixture signal is of course the arrival of the Indo-Aryans into South Asia.

Afghans are R1a+L+H majority like typical South Asians other than Hazara population. Mt haplogroup is where it makes difference. They have majority U,H compared to other south Asians which are majority M*.

Dienekes is not going to give up Aryan Invasion, because he knows by proving it, it proves Noahs three world lineage from an area of Middle East/Central Asia/West Asia, from his three sons, Ham, Shem and Japeth, and by rejecting it, it proves the Migration of Abrahamic civilization from India to West Asia, and thereby being the originators of Abrahamic lineages of Jews, Christians and Muslims. Rome worshiped Mithra, who acknowledge it came from Persia, who know it came from India. The whole argument Brahmins have European gene is actually Brahmins have Japeth and Shem genes, or Caucasion genes. They align Brahmins with west asian genepool, when its actually west asians derived from Brahmin genome, this misdirection is repeated. West Asians have Brahmin genes no the other way round. A father who has a son, does not possess the sons genes, but the son posses the fathers genes.

bmdriverYou are just parroting Hindutva garbage; which is the strawman argument that Western proponets of Aryans as intruders/invaders/colonisers into the SubContinent are trying to push a biblical narrative. Nothing is further from the truth.

As I understand it (and I'm the worst geneticist on this site), the Indian population shows a mix of features which are not found in the other indo-european peoples further west, and features which are found further west.

How do you square this with your theory? Surely we would find features associated with Munda and Dravidian peoples further west if the direction of the movement was East to West?

Are you denying that Abrahamic faiths set the creation of civilization in the middle east/West Asia before modern science, ie from Biblical days to Medieval days to the late 19th century, a time span of 2000years?

Do you deny, that Islam, Christianity and Judaism, ALL promote that civilization rose in the middle east, from Noahs three sons. The first two being Caucasian, and the final son being african?

Do you deny, that Christians, claim descendant of Japeth and Arabs from Shem, where do you think the word Semitic comes from?

Now what is Aryan theory? White invaders from europe/west Asia, invaded and CIVILIZED the dark skinned Dravidians?

You call me hindutva it has no meaning, but right wing christianity has 2000years of a meaning. You can deny yourself that Noahs three world lineage has nothing to do with Aryan theory, but one ONLY has to look into Christian and Islamic history to see how IMPORTANT the concept that civilization rose in the middle east/west asia was, and still is, to the point that it can undermine all three faiths by accepting migration from India, is VERY VERY important, and not to be missed. America, South America, Africa, Australia are Christianized lands and All Islamic states, from North Africa, to Central Asia to East Asia, all have an Abrahamic education, which instills the notion that civilization rose in the middle east. And all those lands where conquered and converted. So Thanks for calling me Hinduvta its what i would expect.

Yes, in less than two generations, it will be told that migration took place from India to central Asia to Europe. Romans believed in Mithra, they know that came from Persia, and they know it came from India. Just like Native American names who today reflect their origins back to invasion of European armies, just as whole races and places where distorted, sooner or later the truth comes out. 2000YEARS of Invasion, occupation and conversion leaves alot of evidence behind, that one cannot deny. The attempt to change history lies in the hands of Europeans.

“Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African’s color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks.”Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 11, p. 11

Genesis﻿ 9:25-27:

“Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May﻿ Canaan be the slave of Shem’.”

To sum up we conclude that, because of its very high frequency and diversity, haplogroup O-M95 had an in-situ origin among the Indian Austro-Asiatics, particularly among the Mundaris, not in Southeast Asia as envisaged earlier. Given the large estimate of TMRCA, our study suggests that the Mundari populations are one of the earliest settlers in the Indian Subcontinent.

This is the Indian view. One ancestral group enters India, all Indian derive from such group, area, Gujerat.

Ancestral Indians, located diffusely from Gujarat. One migratin extended along Narmada, to the Sone river. Then along Sone to Ganga, then along Ganga to Brahma-Putra. Then Along BrahmaPutra river into Tibet. That is why we get some of the oldest genes like Y-hg D in Tibet.

The other migration proceeded coastally to South India, Kerala, then reached Andhra coast, then Orissa, then Bengal and then moved into the SEA.

Sanskrit, Tamil, Vedas, Indus, Harapan are all Native Indian developments, Such work has been gaining more and more strength and i would not be surprised that in five years or less, talk of Aryan invasion or migration would be labelled a criminal racist act.

"To sum up we conclude that, because of its very high frequency and diversity, haplogroup O-M95 had an in-situ origin among the Indian Austro-Asiatics, particularly among the Mundaris, not in Southeast Asia as envisaged earlier".

You've shown us that map before. It is unlikely to be correct, and here's the main reason why:

"This is the Indian view. One ancestral group enters India, all Indian derive from such group, area, Gujerat".

As I said elsewhere, that map was made by a very patriotic Indian. I'm reasonably sure that with the latest O phylogeny we have just a derived subset of O2a-M95 found in India: O2a1a-M88. O2a and O2a1 are found in South China and SE Asia but not in India. That would argue against O2a's origin in India. And we have two branches of Austro-Asiatic in SE Asia and just one in India. I agree that the Austro-Asiatic distribution looks very much to be a relic group of languages isolated by later language expansions, such as Sino-Tibetan and Dravidian.

That distribution surely suggests that Austro-Asiatic speakers entered India via the coastal regions of the Bay of Bengal, not that they originated in India.

"Given the large estimate of TMRCA, our study suggests that the Mundari populations are one of the earliest settlers in the Indian Subcontinent".

Mundari could well be one of the earliest 'surviving' languages in the Indian Subcontinent, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are actually the 'earliest'. On the other hand they may have been the first into the North Andhra-Orissa-Chattisgarh-Jharkhand region. Perhaps it was uninhabited before they arrived.

"Then Along BrahmaPutra river into Tibet. That is why we get some of the oldest genes like Y-hg D in Tibet".

Isn't D in India found almost totally where Tibeto-Burman languages are spoken? That surely would indicate that D's migration was in the opposite direction to what you propose.

"Ancestral Indians, located diffusely from Gujarat".

I can easily accept that scenario for mt-DNA M and probably for Y-DNA F. But not for any Y-DNA O.

"South Indians developed the Dravidian languages".

Possible, but unlikely. How do you reconcile your belief that Austro-Asiatic swept east into SE Asia leaving all Dravidian speakers totally behind? Surely members of both should have moved east. As Belenos said:

"How do you square this with your theory? Surely we would find features associated with Munda and Dravidian peoples further west if the direction of the movement was East to West?"

THIS MAP SHOWS THE EXACT MOVEMENT OF INDIANS. I have read comments on here how South Asians are a mix between Europeans and East Asians, the truth is easier to understand, One migration two directions, from South Asia.

One ancestral group, three dispersal into India from one group, to south India, North East India, and North west India. Further dispersal into central Asia, west Asia and east Asia BEFORE re-mixture takes place back in India. My opinion origin of D is in North East India (Sikkim) maybe further south. The Oriental facial type starts in North East India.__

You dismiss Indian scholars, the people of the Indus, of Arya culture, Hinduism, vedic belief, as being minor, you dismiss the interpretation of their own literature and archeology, thats bias. Or am i to believe a white tribe, which is ALWAYS noted, the skin color, invaded India, and then imposed caste, where by light skinned enslaved dark skinned, gave them Sanskrit, developed their civilization and you don't think that is ABSURD, and see no parallels with Noah's three world lineage, is shocking.

Genetic Affinities of the Central Indian Tribal Populations -http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0032546

''Y-chromosomal biallelic markers revealed high frequency of Austroasiatic-specific M95-O2a haplogroup in Bharia and Sahariya, M82-H1a in Bhil and M17-R1a in Bhil and Sahariya. The results obtained by haploid as well as diploid genetic markers revealed strong genetic affinity of Bharia (a Dravidian speaking tribe) with the Austroasiatic (Munda) group''___

''Both Y-chromosomal as well as mitochondrial DNA, and finds that on both the bases, the Austro-Asiatic speakers originated in India and then migrated to the Southeast Asia through northeast Indian corridor''

Scientists don't even think about the Origin of Western Civilization - except if they study particular parts of that. When doing unrelated archaeology, linguistics, or genetics, the vast majority of scientist truly have no great bias (but many hobbyists and lay people do, often even inadvertently). There is of course also some state-sponsored research in totalitarian regimes that is biased. However, any different estimate of this situation simply is paranoia and/or a conspiracy theory.

i would not be surprised that in five years or less, talk of Aryan invasion or migration would be labelled a criminal racist act

So you like living in totalitarian regimes that prohibit free speech and free research?

''So you like living in totalitarian regimes that prohibit free speech and free research?''

During 1700 to 1952 Indian GDP fell from 24% to less than 3%. With that wealth, the two Abrahamic expansionist faiths, Islam and Christianity, set up front organization in India, to this day Aryan tales are TOLD at primary school level, something which is not proven is told as fact, under the guidance of the west. That is not free SPEECH!. Their are TOO MANY detailed accounts of the Racial conspiracy developed by Europeans during occupation of India.

''Mountstuart Grant-Duff, the British Governer of Madras in his address to the students of the madras university in 1886 told the students "You are of pure Dravidian race" and he preceded to say they have been cheated by the Brahmins. This is the first time in history a group of human beings have been addressed as Dravidian Race''

“We British European are Aryans, and far more pure and genuine Aryans than the Hindus, and no talk of the Hindus can alter our race, or make us any less or any different from what we are,” said A.C.L Carlleyle, a 19th century employee of the Archaeological Survey of India. “It is the Hindus who have altered and deteriorated, and not we. The Hindus have become the coffee dregs, while we have remained the cream of the Aryan race. The Hindus are like the monkey who pretend (sic) to treat some men with contempt because they had the bare white skins without any fur! The Hindus have become a sooty, dingy-coloured earthen pot, by rubbing against black aborigines rather too freely; and he consequently pretends to despise the white porcelain bowl.”

Backlash has started against this racist insertion, which it is, white skinned Europeans civilized dark skinned Indian. No difference between Noahs theory and Aryan theory, its the EXACT same premise. If you look at the data, free from biased perceived migrations, then its CLEAR, migration took place from South Asia. The Caucasian facial type originates in India, the Oriental facial type starts in north east India.

__Metspalu, Gyaneshwer Chaubey et al, AJHG, Dec. 2011)

The component which spread beyond India has significantly higher haplotype diversity in India than in any other part of world. This is clear proof that this genetic component originated in India and then spread to West Asia and Caucasus. __

terryt:''You've shown us that map before. It is unlikely to be correct, and here's the main reason why

"This is the Indian view. One ancestral group enters India, all Indian derive from such group, area, Gujerat".

So the reason is what? Because Indians say their civilization started in India, by Indians is wrong? I still am scratching my head in response to that answer, by terry t. Most of his replies where ifs, buts, maybes, and assumption of something or another, which is yet to be proved, but he hopes will one day. Well good luck with that.

Why is it a problem for Europeans to accept ancestry from India, If science weighs heavily in that favor, could it be an inherent racial bias existing in Europe/Middle East for 2000years, Racial beliefs which set European expansion are hard to destroy because it was used to create a fictitious glorified past which today has become ''history''. In USA you have KKK talking about Aryan homeland with NO KNOWLEDGE of either Vedic culture or Sankrit, prob cant point to a map of India, or even Europe!

Europeans are just less diverse, less coloured Indians. Since color is big thing in Abrahamic civilisations, then let me say.

No it doesn't. It shows a postulated movement of Indians. In my opinion it is wrong in several important respects.

"Why is it a problem for Europeans to accept ancestry from India"

Because most people are aware that not everyone originated in India, in spite of what you would like to believe. Humans don't originate in a single place, especially not from the confines of a Garden of Eden. They are a mixture, as Dienekes is constantly trying to point out.

"So the reason is what? Because Indians say their civilization started in India, by Indians is wrong?"

Civilization in India is much more recent than the Paleolithic.

"The Oriental facial type starts in North East India".

But is almost certainly the result of immigration into there from further to the northeast. The 'Oriental facial type' certainly become more marked as we move further the northeast from North East India.

"D distributed 0%-65% in Northeast India in adivasi tribes"

Specifically D1. Just one haplogroup of at least four, and probably five. You are ignoring the total phylogeny again because it fits what you want to believe.

"The researchers found that Indian populations had more genetic diversity - which gives an indication of the age of a population - than either Europeans or East Asians"

Diversity as such is not always an indication of origin. Diversity is often a product of multiple migrations into a specific region, which is likely to be the case for at least some of the diversity in India. Besides which how come you claim here that diversity indicates origin but when it comes to Y-DNAs O2 and D you deny diversity equals origin?

"I still am scratching my head in response to that answer, by terry t. Most of his replies where ifs, buts, maybes, and assumption of something or another, which is yet to be proved, but he hopes will one day. Well good luck with that".

Check the haplogroup phylogenies. Note especially mtDNA M42'74. M42 in Australia, and in the Munda-speaking people of India. Sure, that may indicate a movement from India to Australia, but I think not. M74 is found between the two M42 extremes: in South China, Hainan and Vietnam. The haplogroup as a whole looks to have originated and expanded from some middle region, not from either end. As for Y-DNA:

"Found origin of O2a-M95 in India, about 65,000 +/- 40,000years back"

That was possible to believe before the latest revisions of the phylogeny. It is very difficult these days to make a convincing case for O2 having originated in India.

The distribution of Y-DNA O2a:

O2a(xO2a1) Austro-Asiatic speakers, but also Kradai-speakers and Malays. Not present in India as far as I'm aware. The presence of the haplogroup in non-Austro-Asiatics is easily explained by their having adopted the later Austronesian/Thai and Sino-Tibetan languages.

O2a1* Especially present in the Mon-Khmer branch of Austro-Asiatic speakers. But also spread in an arc south around the South China Sea to the Philippines and Sulawesi at one end and through western Indonesia to Borneo and Bali at the other. Austronesian has replaced Austro-Asiatic in the islands, presumably exactly as Austro-Asiatic replaced earlier languages.

O2a1a We find this haplogroup around the western shore of the South China Sea, in South China, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand, and further west as far as the Munda-speaking people of India, and even beyond.

Exactly. bmdriver, don't you realize that you are arbitrarily throwing around time scales of 40,000 to 80,000 ya and mixing them up with those of the past several millennia?

It is very clear and widely accepted that many if not most (e.g., except E) European male and mtDNA haplogroups have their origin in Central, South, and Southeast or even East Asia (at various, but paleolithic points in time), and arrived in Europe and immediately adjacent West Asia via Pakistan and also likely NE of the Caspian. That, for the most part, happened 25,000 to 50,000 ya. How is that related to the advent of Civilizations?

If you want to postulate a recent migration out of India into Europe (other than gypsies), than name specific haplogroup subgroups that fit such a hypothesis and its timing (like one can do for gypsies), or show analogous autosomal evidence.

Their is no Pakistan till the 1940's. India is Bharat Varsha, which includes Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Burma or South Asia, till it was split up. We have a common origin and culture, between India and Europe. Now those origins are the roots of OUR civilization.

West believes civilization rose around 4-6000years ago, originally based on biblical time-frame. In India using ancient texts, vedas, sutras, astronomy, MH, Rig Veda and other texts, farming they push back Indian civilization to at least 10,000 years or more. Euro-centric approach shortens those dates to coincide with their own View, aka Noahs. The dates of Indian civilization are distorted. Agriculture went out of India, with traveling tribes that could migrate and sustain as farmers. Arya means Farmers. The domestication of Zebu cows took place in India, and migrated out with man. Cow, Goat and Sheep also North India. Migration of Mice and Rats followed the migration of Farming, Mice consumed excess food from farming, became synthesized with migration also all mice originate from North India. Austro-Asiatic, Tibeto-Burman, over eighty percent of their lexicon is borrowed from Sanskrit. Of course you say Sanskrit come from where? you dont know but you def know it didnt come from India, the place where they still recite in Sanskrit.

Thai (koh), Pinyin Chinese (guandku ), Cantonese (ngau), European (Cow) all came from Sanskrit Gau. This migration of man, farming and linguistics has movement from either side of India. Witzel has been well known to distort whole meanings and words, to show migration into India, again and again.

The caucasion facial type comes from India, the Oriental facial type starts from North east India. Oriental facial type gets more and more pronounced further away from their root, because they no longer admixture with the founding Indian population, and facial type, so their features are not diluted back into the Indian type. Whereas Migrating 02 tribes could not reengage with the Mainstream, hence their racial type become more and more pronounced further east. Go to North East India, and you see Brown Skinned Indian, with black hair, with the onset of Sharp, Oriental type Eyes. Now their ancestors populated East Asia and North Asia, as shown Three human migration maps. The 02 that remained got absorbed back into the indian genepool and other Haplogroups hence freq is less. The same bias that was shown in European scholars is now starting in Chinese intellectual circles with their imperialism of the world.

Their a few more 02 Indian origin studies of which i cannot seem to locate, when i do i will post. But nothing can be certain until more and more detailed mapping comes out. But three studies confirm or suggest migration from Indian tribes aa into south east asia. An independent six year study from IBM geographic showed the same migration from India. Human Genome Organisation’s (HUGO’s) Pan-Asian SNP Consortium have extended this study to 73 Southeast Asian (SEA) and East Asian (EA) populations, showed the same migration. All different studies, producing the same migration. Linguistics shows the same Migration.

Also there are studies that suggest migration from India to Australia.

Journal of Human Genetics (2011) 56, 258–269;

The Soliga, an isolated tribe from Southern India: genetic diversity and phylogenetic affinities

India's role in the dispersal of modern humans can be explored by investigating its oldest inhabitants: the tribal people. The Soliga people exhibited genetic affinity to two Australian aboriginal populations. This genetic similarity could be attributed to the ‘Out of Africa’ migratory wave(s) along the southern coast of India that eventually reached Australia. Alternatively, the observed genetic affinity may be explained by more recent migrations from the Indian subcontinent into Australia.

__

Gene Flow from the Indian Subcontinent to Australia: Evidence from the Y Chromosome 2002.Alan J. Redd1,June Roberts-Thomson3,Tatiana Karafet1.

"West believes civilization rose around 4-6000years ago, originally based on biblical time-frame. In India using ancient texts, vedas, sutras, astronomy, MH, Rig Veda and other texts, farming they push back Indian civilization to at least 10,000 years or more".

And those Indian ancient texts are no more reliable as history than is the Bible. In other words almost (but by no means completely) worthless.

"Oriental facial type gets more and more pronounced further away from their root, because they no longer admixture with the founding Indian population"

To some extent I agree. Obviously you accept there was some population somewhere near northern China that didn't come from India. I agree with that bit, however I am reasonably sure that that population is the source of the Oriental facial type, not the end product.

"Whereas Migrating 02 tribes could not reengage with the Mainstream, hence their racial type become more and more pronounced further east".

That doesn't make evolutionary sense. What selection pressure would drive such a change?

"The 02 that remained got absorbed back into the indian genepool and other Haplogroups hence freq is less".

The O2 in India is so obviously an immigrant there that I can't understand why you can't see it. You are obviously blinded by your pre-existing beliefs.

"The same bias that was shown in European scholars is now starting in Chinese intellectual circles with their imperialism of the world".

Whereas that same bias is not present in Indian intellectual circles? I'm sure that many will find this paper interesting, if they haven't seen it before (Y Chromosomes of Prehistoric People along the Yangtze River):

It seems that the O haplogroup basically originated and diversified along the Yangtze River, with O1 in the far east and O3 in the upper reaches with O2 in the middle. And the Austro-Asiatic spread included O3a2b as well as O2a. The information in the paper makes it even more difficult to argue a case for an Indian origin for any O haplogroup. I do agree though that O's distant ancestor MNOPS is a product of a movement through India. So O2a actually ultimately represents a back movement into India.

"Gene Flow from the Indian Subcontinent to Australia: Evidence from the Y Chromosome 2002.Alan J. Redd1,June Roberts-Thomson3,Tatiana Karafet1."

I could only find the abstract (so I don't know the Y-DNA referred to) but the authors suggest:

"Estimates of the divergence time for these Indian and Australian chromosomes overlap with important changes in the archaeological and linguistic records in Australia. These results provide strong evidence for an influx of Y chromosomes from the Indian subcontinent to Australia that may have occurred during the Holocene".

So it is not Paleolithic and, in the light of east to west expansion, could well have been a movement INTO India. And the other paper:

"This genetic similarity could be attributed to the 'Out of Africa' migratory wave(s) along the southern coast of India that eventually reached Australia. Alternatively, the observed genetic affinity may be explained by more recent migrations from the Indian subcontinent into Australia".

And:

"The Soliga, an isolated tribe from Southern India: genetic diversity and phylogenetic affinities"

Again, the authors are prepared to accept a post-Paleolithic connection. And Razib has this to say about that paper:

"To be blunt about it I think the researchers here just randomly stumbled onto a weird result which happened to align with some plausible preconceptions. This happens all the time, and is responsible for the unfortunate confirmation bias which plagues science. Researchers know very well what the expected results are, and may unconsciously or consciously sift through their data for a set of facts which align well with their theoretical preconceptions".

''The obvious candidate for this admixture signal is of course the arrival of the Indo-Aryans into South Asia. ''yep but to south india probably and it may have started with vedic sages like of Agastya of whom the earliest tamil literature sangam speak of.

Old Blog Archive

Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to human population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history.

You are free to reuse any of the materials of this blog for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute them to Dienekes Pontikos and provide a link to either the individual blog entry or to Dienekes Anthropology Blog.

Feel free to send e-mail to Dienekes Pontikos, or follow @dienekesp on Twitter.